atget

[jeff_buckels]

I hope some of us are staying with this thread.... The question of

intent is very difficult. We are certainly not inclined to be bound

by the artist's intent. Yet, who among us hasn't had the experience

(many times!) of being put off by an interpretation of a picture that

we feel strongly (or even know for a fact) to be far off the artist's

intent? A further complication, though, is the question of just what

the artist's intent IS. Is it what the artist says it is? Take

Atget's well-known and beautiful street portrait of the little boy

selling wild flowers or herbs in the morning light (p. 98 of A VISION

OF PARIS, if you happen to have it).... It appears Atget would say

that this was part of his sub-project of cataloging every kind of

street vendor of old Paris that he could. A psychologist might

consider the story of Atget's life, together with the pictures, and

figure that Atget, in late middle age, was attempting to heal his own

inner child, to save himself from his own brutal childhood. John

Szarkowski might say the purpose was to dramatize the connection

between beauty and the passing away of what we feel to be beautiful (a

core idea of romanticism and of Atget's work).... As long as this

remains a discussion of intent, however, or the place of intent, the

inquiry seems essentially frustrating. An interesting alternative is

that proposed by David Hurn and Bill Jay in ON LOOKING AT PHOTOGRPAHS

(Lenswork, 2000). They suggest thinking about what a picture is "of"

(this is a picture of a little street kid selling flowers) as opposed

to what it is "about" (documenting a type of street vending,

psychodrama, etc., as above). Hurn and Jay are real firm that we can

all agree on what the picture is "of", but no one can be right or

wrong concerning what the picture is about, but they do seem to

require "about" to be perceptible within the four corners of the

picture (no biography of Atget, etc.). There are difficulties here,

too, though. What if I'd said, "This is a picture of a POOR little

street kid selling flowers"? Can we agree on that? Have we gone over

the line into what the picture is about? Where is the line? -jeff

buckels (albuquerque nm)

[emile_de_leon9]

I think it's fair to say that no one person percieves any one thing

exactly the same as any other person. We can get close... if the

language/art is the same.... but a true understanding...I doubt it.We

are all subjective creatures... all attached to our own personal

subjective realities ...so...all we can really trust is ourselves and

our own perceptions and probably only a portion of the time ...that

being when we are fortunate enough to be closer to our

essense/permanance and more detached from our

conditioning/personality. When seeing/feeling a photograph... in

contrast to just looking at it.... only the observer and the observed

exists....and when the essense is reached ...even that duality ceases

to be.

[michael_alpert1]

I do not disagree with what Jeff and Emile have contributed. I would

add that experience is the middle term between subjectivity and the

objective world. Human experience is more alike than it is dissimilar.

There are some wonderful essays on Cezanne by Maurice Merleau-Ponty

that can give us a way to look at both artistic intent and the actual

presence of artistic work in the world. Most criticism of photography

has been sadly superficial. Even Walter Benjamin had a hard time

understanding photography, though his essays are wonderfully thought-

provoking. Philosophically-based art criticism and literary criticism

offer a better conceptual handle on what photographs can mean. I have

found that viewing photography as philosophical expression does not

distract from the emotional depth and the intuitive joy that I feel as

I am working as a photographer. Nor does it spoil my experience of the

work of great photographers, such as Atget. The complexity of

interpretation that Jeff articulated is not a problem as far as I am

concerned; rather, it is an opportunity to explore the depth of meaning

that exists in Atget's life's work.

[jeff_buckels]

My educational background is in literature, and I surely agree that

literary theory and criticism -- and "aesthetics" in general -- is a

better handle on some of these issues than much of what we've seen in

writing on photography. Photographic writing seems to be

influenced most strongly by the worst of the rubbish from

contemporary writing about painting and sculpture (see the

APERTURE of recent years). A clear exception is John Szarkowski

(mentioned here for the third time -- sorry), who has a breadth of

understanding, and humanity, comparable to some of the giants of 20th

century literary theory. A pretty easily accessible and wonderful

example is his introduction to his 70s volume MIRRORS AND WINDOWS

(real easy to get on Amazon, Barnes, etc.). Atget's reputation, to

return to the subject, grew as Szarkowski's grew, just as William

Blake's grew with that of Northrup Frye, the great literary theorist.

Atget has been Szarkowski's main subject, Blake Frye's.... -jb

[nick_jones]

Perhaps something can be added on the matter of intent (not, I think,

a futile exercise) and then, in the light of this point, on the

matter of "greatness" (which almost certainly is).

 

<p>

 

In the late 1920s Abby Aldrich Rockefeller began acquiring American

folk art (portraits, theorem paintings, cigar store Indians, etc.),

objects at that time thought of as possessing only antiquarian or

historical importance and value. Today, her 424 pieces form the core

of the collection in the AAR Folk Art Center in Williamsburg, Va.

Now the interesting part. "Mrs. Rockefeller's interest in folk art

was a direct result of her appreciation of contemporary art. A

founder and active supporter of the Museum of Modern Art, she knew

and patronized many of the artists who exhibited there" (Treasures of

American Folk Art, ed. Rumford and Weekley, p. 8). So here,

paralleling the case of Atget under discussion, we have a problem

concerning intent. Whose intent counts? The artist's? The viewer

or collector's? What difference does intent make at all?

 

<p>

 

Although I am, as a consequence of my LF b/w work, very sympathetic

to modernism, I just can't bring myself to view American folk art as

though it were modern, esp. because it is precisely the lack of

training in "academic" art of the (usually unidentified) artist that

accounts for his/her works' "folk" qualities--the very qualities that

give the modernist viewer the false impression of modernism.

Modernism lay a century or more in the future; and even if that style

had been in currency, the folk artist by definition would not have

known of its existence or, had he/she known, have appreciated it.

 

<p>

 

Something like this situation may obtain in the case of Atget. My

previous post suggested he viewed himself as a supplier of subjects

for artists' use, conscientiously but not (in his own estimation)

artfully recording scenes which, probably because in some cases they

were soon to cease to exist, might appeal to "true" artists, i.e.

painters. Admittedly, this is a caricature, and God knows I'm no

authority on Atget, but the Newhalls' biography suggests that there

is an element of truth here.

 

<p>

 

Where esthetics are concerned, it's a free world, and we all make

what we want of our visual and other sensory experiences. Jeff

certainly makes a good point about how differing approaches yield

contrasting interpretations of the same image; that even the

artist/photographer may be confused or wrong about his own intent;

and that biographical details may be beside the point (New Criticism

rearing its menacing head again?). But when we talk (as several

posts on this and other threads do) of "greatness" we can't avoid

being drawn into questions of place and time, teachers and pupils,

museums and shows visited or not visited, other artists known or not

known--the stuff that photographic history and criticism I've read so

far seems to be made of. Once unpacked and made

explicit, "greatness" would I think turn out to have something to do

with one's predecessors (say, the artist who brings a movement to its

climax) or one's successors (the seminal or influential figure who

gives birth to something new), but in either case "greatness" will

have a historical context. This is why I'm reluctant to give up the

notion that the "great" artist must be conscious of, and intend, what

he or she is doing. A photographer's work, or a particular image,

could be influential by accident, or when misinterpreted or otherwise

misunderstood, but in that case I think we'd have to find another

expression to describe the phenomenon.

[emile_de_leon9]

From what I know and have experienced in the qualities of certain

people/artists that I have come across who are considered great or

damn close(in my musical career)...the one quality I have seen and

recognised is the almost inhuman intensity of their intent and

concentration. The ability to concentrate with extreame intensity

over very long periods of time. One time I was hanging out with a

very famous jazz guitarist who is also a teacher of the highest sort

and I asked him "how do you do it ,is there a secrete?" to which he

replyed..."it's unreal man... how much depends upon your TOTALITY as

a HUMAN BEING" When someone else asked what techniques have to be

used, he replyed "it doesn't HAVE to be anything...it just has to be

what GROOVES YOU" I think that about says it all.This person was very

conscious of their place in the universe and willing to share

everything.He gave 200 percent to everything whether it was speaking

universal truths or drinking a cup of coffee.To those jazz players

out there you might know who this is but I will not say here. Now..

someone like Vincent Van Gogh is another type entirely.A genius who

is also a complete mental case.Someone who can create art of the

highest order but only when the craziness is relaxed enough to let

the soul speak clearly through the art.Someone perhaps not conscious

of their genius but a genius nevertheless. I dont think a genius can

be accidental at all...too much intent is required....intent being

the main quality of the soul along with love. I think most of us get

a glimpse of this quality when we somehow are able to create a real

work of art that contrasts to what we normally do....either through

extreme effort resulting in realisation ....or speed and fluidity

resulting in superb culmination....the effortless effort .

E.

[christopher_nisperos1]

I stumbled across this discussion a bit late (today is the 4th of

Oct.), but I'd like to contribute, if I may:

 

<p>

 

on the pronunciation of "Atget", even the French can't seem to agree

(I live in Paris and I've asked many friends) "Aht-zhay" or

"Aht-zhett", either is OK, but you definitely (if softly) pronounce

the "t" after the first letter. I prefer the first version because it

sounds more "French" to me. Call me a snob (and you'll be wrong!).

 

<p>

 

I haven't yet had a chance to read the whole discussion, but to the

friendly provocation of Mr.Wilhelm bmitch ("a blind man can make

beautiful pictures of Paris"), I would respond, "yeah, but it takes

another blind man to appreciate them".

 

<p>

 

Furthermore, I would like to commend Raymond Bleesz and Jeff Buckels,

among others, for their insightful comments.

 

<p>

 

Two years ago I started a little association called "l'Espirit

d'Atget" in the hopes of promoting large format photography in the

streets of Paris, to get around bureaucratic "permits" to photograph

monuments and in the parks, and to photographically "save" historic

buildings and sights --- much as Atget had done. In Paris, this

association has fallen flat on it's face ... for the most part, a

French photographer in Paris = Leica or people pictures. But, the

association is so named because the spirit of Atget exist in places

all over the world, not just Paris. Therefore I have friends in Prague

and LA shooting with the preservation goal in mind. Once we have

enough photographers shooting in the same "spirit", I'll reve up the

association again (legally, it still exists ...Paris workshops a

likely project, if enough interest is there).

 

<p>

 

By the way, many Atget images are in the public domain and therefore

prints may be available at moderate cost.Inside news is that many of

the plates are deteriorated (emulsions like "jigsaw puzzles" according

to a well-placed source), but the French ministry of culture doesn't

seem to want to do anything about it ...which I particularly don't

understand because I have it that Kodak even offered to contribute

material for a conservation project.

 

<p>

 

Time to step down from my soapbox. I don't claim to be an Atget

scholar, just a fan, like you. Would be pleased to stay in contact.

 

Best,

 

<p>

 

Christopher Nisperos

Paris

[vinz_la_touke]

Sorry for the intrusion.For having experienced it Christopher's

pronounciation sounds very French and correct.

Regards

[gerald_m._panter]

On the significance of Atget's work and the excitement of visiting

and rephotographing selected sites he photographed/documented (a

hundred years ago in many cases), please see my website:

www.GMPANTER.com

[see_r]

<p>I like the quote of his that says something like a good photograph is like a good hound dog--dumb but elequent.</p>